DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 06/25/2026.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleged the following: “Girard therefore fails, for example, to disclose, teach, or suggest the functionality of claims 1, 13, and 20 as amended herewith wherein one or more entity affordances can be provided to non-entity map geometry items at the runtime of the video game, as claimed.” The examiner is not persuaded. The examiner asserts the combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses the Applicant’s claim language. More specifically, Li discloses “providing, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game, one or more entity affordances to non-entity map geometry items” in Column 5, Lines 47-67. MPEP § 2106 states Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur, US 20160307354 in view of Girard, US 20110012903 and in further view of Li, US 11847723.
Claim 1:
Baur discloses a computer-implemented method (See Baur Abstract). Baur failed to disclose “and altering, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game, at least one base animation.”. However, Girard disclose this feature in paragraphs 0058; 0089-0090. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Baur by the teachings of Girard to enable improved real-time character animation, more effectively (See Girard Field of Invention). In addition, both of the references tach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, animation. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Additionally, Baur and Girard failed to disclose “providing, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game, one or more entity affordances to non-entity map geometry items.” However, Li discloses this feature in Column 5, Lines 47-67. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Baur and Girard by the teachings of Li to enable improved mapping application, more effectively (See Li Abstract). In addition, both of the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, interactive data visualization (i.e. mapping application). This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As modified:
The combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses the following:
processing, by a computing system at runtime of a videogame (See Girard Paragraph 0058), one or more animation constraints (See Baur Paragraphs 0083-0084), wherein said animation constraints include one or more of position constraints, orientation constraints, aim constraints, or limb length constraints (See Baur Paragraphs 0007-0010; 0028; 0034-0036; 0083-0084);
providing, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game, one or more entity affordances to non-entity map geometry items (See Li Column 5, Lines 47-67);
enforcing, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game (See Girard Paragraph 0058), using a runtime constraints solver, said animation constraints (See Baur Paragraphs 0007-0010; 0028; 0034-0036);
and altering, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game (See Girard Paragraph 0058), at least one base animation (See Girard Paragraphs 0089-00901).
Claim 2:
The combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses processing, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game (See Girard Paragraph 0058), one or more alias entities (See Girard Paragraph 0006).
Claim 3:
The combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses processing, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game (See Girard Paragraph 0058), one or more interaction bounds (See Baur Paragraphs 0083-00842), wherein said interaction bounds (See Baur Paragraphs 0083-0084) comprise three-dimensional shapes attached to one or more skeletons (See Girard Paragraph 0033).
Claim 4:
The combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses wherein said skeletons include one or more of character, prop, vehicle, or map part skeletons (See Girard Paragraph 0033).
Claim 5:
The combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses wherein the animations constraints are expressed using a constraints language (See Baur Paragraphs 0011-0014; 0083).
Claim 6:
The combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses wherein the animations constraints comprise expressed spatio-temporal relationships between interacting entities and body parts (See Girard Paragraphs 0010; 0033).
Claim 7:
The combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses wherein one or more of the animations constraints refer to one or more of the interaction bounds (See Baur Paragraphs 0083-00843).
Claim 8:
The combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses mapping, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game, using the interaction bounds (See Baur Paragraphs 0083-00844), interactions between different entities of an archetype (See Girard Paragraph 00335).
Claim 9:
The combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses wherein the interaction bounds (See Baur Paragraphs 0083-00846) are based on primitive shapes (See Girard Paragraph 00337).
Claim 10:
The combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses updating, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game (See Girard Paragraph 0058), using one or more of script inputs, skeleton pose inputs, or retargeting constraint inputs (See Girard Paragraph 0033), one or more of the interaction bounds (See Baur Paragraphs 0083-00848).
Claim 11:
The combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses wherein said enforcing of said animation constraints using the runtime constraints solver (See Baur Paragraphs 0007-0010; 0028; 0034-0036) further comprises:
executing, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game (See Girard Paragraph 0058), at least one preparation step (See Girard Paragraphs 0045-0046; 0064-00659);
executing, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game (See Girard Paragraph 0058), at least one priority layers solve step (See Baur Paragraph 0133);
and executing, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game (See Girard Paragraph 0058), at least one follow-up step (See Girard Paragraphs 0053-0055).
Claim 12:
The combination of Baur, Girard and Li discloses wherein said enforcing of said animation constraints using the runtime constraints solver (See Baur Paragraphs 0007-0010; 0028; 0034-0036) further comprises:
forming, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game (See Girard Paragraph 0058), one or more interaction islands (See Baur Paragraph 001410), wherein said one or more interaction islands involve sets of entities that are interdependent (See Baur Paragraph 0014), based on one or more of the animation constraints (See Baur Paragraphs 0083-0084);
executing, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game (See Girard Paragraph 0058), for a plurality of said entities, at least one simultaneous constraints solve operation (See Baur Paragraphs 0007-0010; 0028; 0034-0036);
and executing, by the computing system at the runtime of the video game (See Girard Paragraph 0058), based on at least one outcome of said execution of said simultaneous constraints solve operations, one or more blend trees (See Girard Paragraph 0008).
Claims 13-15:
Claims 13-15 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1-3.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as claim 8.
Claims 17-19:
Claim 17-19 are rejected on the same basis as claims 10-12.
Claims 20-22:
Claims 20-22 are rejected on the same basis as claims 1-3.
Claim 23:
Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis as claim 8.
Claims 24-26:
Claims 24-26 are rejected on the same basis as claims 10-12.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Somers US 11110353 discloses a system and method for utilizing a video game console to monitor the player's video game, detect when a particular gameplay situation occurs during the player's video game experience, and collect game state data corresponding to how the player reacts to the particular gameplay situation or an effect of the reaction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEREE N BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-4229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAID BROOME can be reached at (571) 272-2931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHEREE N BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612 August 10, 2026
1 Girard Paragraphs 0089-0090 recites “when blended together the resulting animation” in which is the same as “altering … animation.”
2 NOTE: The Applicant states in Paragraph 0093 “constraint can refer to a bound.”
3 NOTE: The Applicant states in Paragraph 0093 “constraint can refer to a bound.”
4 NOTE: The Applicant states in Paragraph 0093 “constraint can refer to a bound.”
5 Girard Paragraph 0033 discloses “texture mapping.”
6 NOTE: The Applicant states in Paragraph 0093 “constraint can refer to a bound.”
7 Girard Paragraph 0033 discloses “geometrical primitives.”
8 NOTE: The Applicant states in Paragraph 0093 “constraint can refer to a bound.”
9 Girard Paragraphs 0045-0046; 0064-0065 teachings of “pre-computing” and “pre-processes” is the same as the Applicant’s teachings of “preparation step.”
10 Bauer Paragraph 0014 teachings of “real-time environment” is the same as the Applicant’s “interaction island.”
Prosecution Insights